Re: Law-abiding majority 'is a myth'

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
Ian Smith wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, Matt the Berk wrote:

Only where the values are all wrong. Can't you see, that if they
are bestowed with the right and the power, they will use it. Have
you ever noticed how the roles are reversed at zebra crossing?
Many a pedestrian would get himself killed rather than give way to
an errant motorist - the pedestrian asserts his legal right to
cross - come what may. Where priorities are unclear motorists are
cautious(think broken traffic lights), where motorists are given
priority (or de-facto priority) they will assert it. So think
about it - we give them all the tarmac between the kerbs, on that
tarmac they have priority whilst not crossing any white lines, if
they have green lights they have priority, they /always/ have
priority over pedestrians - that have been taught that from a very
early age.

Exactly - so install shared spaces and they assume they own teh lot
and continue to behave that way. So you agree - shared spaces don't
work, because motorists have been taught from an early age that they
have priority.

It was actually this sort of change that wrecked the town centre
in the first place.

What did they demolish when they pedestrianised it?

I told you. Everything in the way, on a straight line in all three
dimensions. Buildings, roads, ground level all gone. What we have
now is called 'Leret Way'. It doesn't join all teh perpendicular
roads because of level differences. It isolates teh town centre from
teh majority of teh town, encouraging a car-dependance. If residents
feel they need to get in teh car to get to teh town centre, they may
as well go to some other town centre.

Car parks aren't free. Land in Surrey is not free. What you
actually want is yet more subsidy of motorists by tax-payers.

Nor are hospitals, schools, libraries, police, or firemen free, but
they are funded from our taxes to provide fair and equitable
services for all citizens. Think of it not as a subsidy, but as
part of the cost of a community spirited integrated society.

More rubbish. Presumably you also advocate that government pays for
all cars - after all in Bourke-world car-ownership for all is a
necesary requirement for community spirited integrated society.


--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Speed Limits: How Low Is Too Low?
    ... to motor traffic on the roads, so motorists subconsciously assume priority, and the laws of nature take over. ... You see the same "law" in action with peds prepared to be killed rather than concede right-of-way to an errant motorist on a zebra crossing. ... The reduction in traffic speeds are dramatic under equal-priority schemes, as are the reduction in serious collisions and congestion. ...
    (uk.rec.cycling)
  • Re: Law-abiding majority is a myth
    ... Leatherhead High Street has none of the cues. ... So you're saying teh motorists act as antisocial thugs because they don't feel loved? ... Are you saying I should gladly welcome being hooted at by impatient car-drivers when I'm in teh middle of teh raod becasue antisocial car-drvers have parked so close to teh buildings my daughter's push-chair doesn't fit anywhere else? ... There are no priorities or rights-of-way - pedestrians can stand chatting in the middle of the road and motor vehicles will wait. ...
    (uk.rec.cycling)
  • Re: Another wrist slapping
    ... They were a good idea in their day, primarily designed to meet the needs of pedestrians rather than motorists. ... As described above, roads which have a social use, should be designed to allow pedestrians and car drivers to co-exist - and have equal priority. ...
    (uk.rec.cycling)
  • Re: Article In the Sunday Mail - Driver Speaks out ( Jason MacIntyre )
    ... In our community spaces (we are not talking trunk roads or motorways ... course, expect that priority to be conceded, again, not because they ... _expect_ to proceed safely across a crossroads at 30 mph, ... If motorists could reasonably expect ...
    (uk.rec.cycling)
  • Re: Law-abiding majority is a myth
    ... Many a pedestrian would get himself killed rather than give way to an errant motorist - the pedestrian asserts his legal right to cross - come what may. ... Where priorities are unclear motorists are cautious, where motorists are given priority they will assert it. ... and that's why hundreds of towns around the world are turning to it to solve their town centre traffic safety and congestion problems. ...
    (uk.rec.cycling)